Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.429, 0.173 | 0.406 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.011 | 0.133 | -0.250, 0.272 | 0.934 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.212 | 0.192 | -0.163, 0.588 | 0.269 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.268 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.380 | -0.824, 0.664 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.183 | 0.242 | -0.657, 0.291 | 0.450 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 0.349 | 0.333, 1.70 | 0.004 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.502 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.711 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.709 | 0.393 | -0.062, 1.48 | 0.073 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.568 | -0.099, 2.13 | 0.076 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.183 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.259 | -0.476, 0.540 | 0.902 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.017 | 0.171 | -0.318, 0.353 | 0.919 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.307 | 0.247 | -0.176, 0.791 | 0.214 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.289 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.409 | -0.458, 1.15 | 0.401 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.436 | 0.252 | -0.057, 0.929 | 0.085 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.392 | 0.363 | -0.319, 1.10 | 0.281 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.544, 0.912 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.204 | -0.023, 0.778 | 0.066 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.291 | 0.295 | -0.288, 0.869 | 0.326 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.304 | -0.987, 0.203 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.065 | 0.208 | -0.343, 0.472 | 0.756 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.760 | 0.299 | 0.173, 1.35 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.882 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.247 | -3.73, 1.16 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.30 | 0.626 | -2.53, -0.073 | 0.039 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.264 | 0.904 | -2.04, 1.51 | 0.770 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.408 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.578 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.415 | 0.336 | -0.243, 1.07 | 0.218 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.156 | 0.485 | -0.794, 1.11 | 0.747 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.514 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.727 | -0.585, 2.26 | 0.249 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.510 | 0.408 | -0.289, 1.31 | 0.212 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.217 | 0.588 | -0.936, 1.37 | 0.712 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.642 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.908 | -0.411, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.18 | 0.481 | 0.237, 2.12 | 0.015 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.145 | 0.694 | -1.22, 1.51 | 0.835 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.337 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.476 | -0.581, 1.28 | 0.460 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.435 | 0.255 | -0.064, 0.934 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.030 | 0.368 | -0.750, 0.691 | 0.936 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.543 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.767 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.714 | 0.418 | -0.105, 1.53 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.457 | 0.603 | -0.724, 1.64 | 0.449 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.630 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.891 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 0.467 | 0.187, 2.02 | 0.019 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.140 | 0.674 | -1.46, 1.18 | 0.836 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.388 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.549 | -0.317, 1.84 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.718 | 0.338 | 0.055, 1.38 | 0.035 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.416 | 0.488 | -0.540, 1.37 | 0.394 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.353 | 0.052, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.048 | 0.200 | -0.440, 0.345 | 0.812 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.389 | 0.289 | -0.177, 0.956 | 0.180 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.403 | -0.399, 1.18 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.348 | 0.226 | -0.094, 0.791 | 0.124 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.290 | 0.326 | -0.349, 0.928 | 0.375 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.415 | -0.118, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.337 | 0.214 | -0.084, 0.757 | 0.118 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.183 | 0.310 | -0.424, 0.790 | 0.555 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.539 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.762 | -0.406, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.681 | 0.376 | -0.057, 1.42 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.491 | 0.544 | -0.574, 1.56 | 0.367 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.820 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.159 | -3.49, 1.06 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.740 | 0.601 | -1.92, 0.437 | 0.219 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 0.867 | -2.98, 0.422 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.444 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.629 | -0.224, 2.24 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.260 | 0.332 | -0.390, 0.909 | 0.435 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.638 | 0.479 | -0.300, 1.58 | 0.184 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.361 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.510 | 0.008, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.538 | 0.290 | -0.031, 1.11 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.276 | 0.419 | -0.545, 1.10 | 0.511 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.767 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.084 | -0.109, 4.14 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.794 | 0.565 | -0.312, 1.90 | 0.161 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.926 | 0.815 | -0.671, 2.52 | 0.257 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.142 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.201 | -0.466, 0.322 | 0.721 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.137 | 0.156 | -0.443, 0.168 | 0.379 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.177 | 0.224 | -0.262, 0.617 | 0.430 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.308 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.436 | -0.135, 1.57 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.662 | 0.303 | 0.069, 1.26 | 0.030 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.742 | 0.436 | -1.60, 0.113 | 0.090 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.533 | -0.581, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.585 | 0.324 | -0.049, 1.22 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.214 | 0.467 | -0.701, 1.13 | 0.647 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.617 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.872 | -0.525, 2.89 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.25 | 0.542 | 0.186, 2.31 | 0.022 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.509 | 0.781 | -2.04, 1.02 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.403 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.571 | -0.590, 1.65 | 0.355 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.771 | 0.323 | 0.139, 1.40 | 0.018 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.103 | 0.465 | -0.810, 1.01 | 0.826 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.223 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.315 | -0.626, 0.610 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.202 | 0.229 | -0.247, 0.652 | 0.378 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.454 | 0.330 | -0.193, 1.10 | 0.171 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.275 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.389 | -0.850, 0.674 | 0.821 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.412 | 0.266 | -0.934, 0.110 | 0.123 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.447 | 0.384 | -1.20, 0.305 | 0.245 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.460 | -0.677, 1.13 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.317 | 0.246 | -0.799, 0.164 | 0.198 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.614 | 0.355 | -1.31, 0.082 | 0.085 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.472 | -1.00, 0.844 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.459 | 0.253 | -0.955, 0.036 | 0.071 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.299 | 0.365 | -1.01, 0.416 | 0.414 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.474 | -0.520, 1.34 | 0.390 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.247 | 0.251 | -0.739, 0.245 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.673 | 0.362 | -1.38, 0.037 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.937 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.325 | -2.05, 3.15 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.03 | 0.634 | -2.28, 0.210 | 0.105 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.53 | 0.916 | -3.33, 0.261 | 0.095 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(447) = 29.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(447) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27], t(447) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 9.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.59], t(447) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(447) = 66.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(447) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.29], t(447) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.33, 1.70], t(447) = 2.92, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.11, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(447) = 59.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(447) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.48], t(447) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.13], t(447) = 1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(447) = 63.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(447) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.35], t(447) = 0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = 8.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.79], t(447) = 1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(447) = 59.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(447) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.93], t(447) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.10], t(447) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(447) = 50.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(447) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.78], t(447) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.96e-03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.87], t(447) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(447) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(447) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(447) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.17, 1.35], t(447) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.07, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(447) = 35.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(447) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.53, -0.07], t(447) = -2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -7.46e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.51], t(447) = -0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(447) = 54.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(447) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.07], t(447) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.11], t(447) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(447) = 47.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(447) = 1.16, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.31], t(447) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.37], t(447) = 0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(447) = 30.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(447) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.24, 2.12], t(447) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.51], t(447) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(447) = 31.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(447) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.93], t(447) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.69], t(447) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(447) = 27.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.68e-15, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(447) = 1.00e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.83e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.53], t(447) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.64], t(447) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(447) = 34.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(447) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [0.19, 2.02], t(447) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.18], t(447) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(447) = 41.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(447) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.06, 1.38], t(447) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(447) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(447) = 52.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(447) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.34], t(447) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.96], t(447) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(447) = 58.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(447) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.79], t(447) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.93], t(447) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(447) = 42.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(447) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.76], t(447) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.79], t(447) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(447) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(447) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.42], t(447) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-9.50e-03, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.56], t(447) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(447) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(447) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.92, 0.44], t(447) = -1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 0.42], t(447) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(447) = 31.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(447) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.91], t(447) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.58], t(447) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(447) = 42.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [8.15e-03, 2.01], t(447) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.01e-03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.11], t(447) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.58e-03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.10], t(447) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(447) = 38.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(447) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(447) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.52], t(447) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(447) = 90.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(447) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17], t(447) = -0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.62], t(447) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(447) = 46.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(447) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.07, 1.26], t(447) = 2.19, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.11], t(447) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(447) = 34.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(447) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.22], t(447) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.13], t(447) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(447) = 44.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.89], t(447) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.19, 2.31], t(447) = 2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.02], t(447) = -0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(447) = 46.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(447) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.14, 1.40], t(447) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.01], t(447) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(447) = 64.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(447) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.65], t(447) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.10], t(447) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(447) = 42.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(447) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.11], t(447) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.30], t(447) = -1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(447) = 31.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(447) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.16], t(447) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.08], t(447) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(447) = 30.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(447) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.04], t(447) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 9.71e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.42], t(447) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(447) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(447) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.25], t(447) = -0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.04], t(447) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 9.89e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(447) = 31.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.05, 3.15], t(447) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.21], t(447) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.26], t(447) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,443.907 | 1,456.255 | -718.954 | 1,437.907 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,447.165 | 1,471.861 | -717.583 | 1,435.165 | 2.742 | 3 | 0.433 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,185.264 | 2,197.612 | -1,089.632 | 2,179.264 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,179.156 | 2,203.852 | -1,083.578 | 2,167.156 | 12.108 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,714.986 | 2,727.334 | -1,354.493 | 2,708.986 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,699.700 | 2,724.395 | -1,343.850 | 2,687.700 | 21.286 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,842.953 | 1,855.301 | -918.477 | 1,836.953 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,845.157 | 1,869.852 | -916.578 | 1,833.157 | 3.796 | 3 | 0.284 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,244.329 | 2,256.677 | -1,119.165 | 2,238.329 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,235.992 | 2,260.688 | -1,111.996 | 2,223.992 | 14.337 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,117.653 | 2,130.000 | -1,055.826 | 2,111.653 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,110.019 | 2,134.714 | -1,049.010 | 2,098.019 | 13.634 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 2,008.595 | 2,020.943 | -1,001.297 | 2,002.595 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 2,000.071 | 2,024.767 | -994.036 | 1,988.071 | 14.524 | 3 | 0.002 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,179.712 | 3,192.060 | -1,586.856 | 3,173.712 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,174.482 | 3,199.178 | -1,581.241 | 3,162.482 | 11.230 | 3 | 0.011 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,527.358 | 2,539.706 | -1,260.679 | 2,521.358 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,529.147 | 2,553.843 | -1,258.574 | 2,517.147 | 4.211 | 3 | 0.240 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,725.008 | 2,737.356 | -1,359.504 | 2,719.008 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,724.754 | 2,749.449 | -1,356.377 | 2,712.754 | 6.254 | 3 | 0.100 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,915.262 | 2,927.610 | -1,454.631 | 2,909.262 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,905.963 | 2,930.659 | -1,446.982 | 2,893.963 | 15.299 | 3 | 0.002 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,324.425 | 2,336.773 | -1,159.213 | 2,318.425 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,324.693 | 2,349.389 | -1,156.347 | 2,312.693 | 5.732 | 3 | 0.125 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,767.444 | 2,779.792 | -1,380.722 | 2,761.444 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,763.451 | 2,788.146 | -1,375.725 | 2,751.451 | 9.994 | 3 | 0.019 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,888.785 | 2,901.132 | -1,441.392 | 2,882.785 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,885.416 | 2,910.112 | -1,436.708 | 2,873.416 | 9.368 | 3 | 0.025 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,514.693 | 2,527.041 | -1,254.346 | 2,508.693 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,502.937 | 2,527.632 | -1,245.469 | 2,490.937 | 17.756 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,078.405 | 2,090.753 | -1,036.203 | 2,072.405 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,074.307 | 2,099.002 | -1,031.153 | 2,062.307 | 10.099 | 3 | 0.018 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,195.737 | 2,208.084 | -1,094.868 | 2,189.737 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,190.425 | 2,215.120 | -1,089.212 | 2,178.425 | 11.312 | 3 | 0.010 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,193.866 | 2,206.214 | -1,093.933 | 2,187.866 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,188.370 | 2,213.065 | -1,088.185 | 2,176.370 | 11.496 | 3 | 0.009 |
els | null | 3 | 2,731.443 | 2,743.791 | -1,362.722 | 2,725.443 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,722.496 | 2,747.191 | -1,355.248 | 2,710.496 | 14.947 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,127.669 | 3,140.017 | -1,560.835 | 3,121.669 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,119.533 | 3,144.229 | -1,553.767 | 3,107.533 | 14.136 | 3 | 0.003 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,577.104 | 2,589.451 | -1,285.552 | 2,571.104 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,571.399 | 2,596.094 | -1,279.700 | 2,559.399 | 11.705 | 3 | 0.008 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,418.614 | 2,430.962 | -1,206.307 | 2,412.614 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,408.833 | 2,433.528 | -1,198.416 | 2,396.833 | 15.781 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,070.345 | 3,082.693 | -1,532.173 | 3,064.345 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,060.764 | 3,085.460 | -1,524.382 | 3,048.764 | 15.581 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,657.978 | 1,670.325 | -825.989 | 1,651.978 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,663.132 | 1,687.828 | -825.566 | 1,651.132 | 0.845 | 3 | 0.839 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,332.307 | 2,344.654 | -1,163.153 | 2,326.307 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,332.444 | 2,357.140 | -1,160.222 | 2,320.444 | 5.862 | 3 | 0.119 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,475.165 | 2,487.513 | -1,234.583 | 2,469.165 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,471.237 | 2,495.932 | -1,229.618 | 2,459.237 | 9.928 | 3 | 0.019 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,926.937 | 2,939.285 | -1,460.469 | 2,920.937 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,924.621 | 2,949.316 | -1,456.310 | 2,912.621 | 8.317 | 3 | 0.040 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,515.367 | 2,527.715 | -1,254.684 | 2,509.367 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,508.090 | 2,532.785 | -1,248.045 | 2,496.090 | 13.277 | 3 | 0.004 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,054.869 | 2,067.217 | -1,024.435 | 2,048.869 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,052.190 | 2,076.885 | -1,020.095 | 2,040.190 | 8.679 | 3 | 0.034 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,230.906 | 2,243.254 | -1,112.453 | 2,224.906 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,224.514 | 2,249.210 | -1,106.257 | 2,212.514 | 12.392 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,301.437 | 2,313.784 | -1,147.718 | 2,295.437 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,292.787 | 2,317.482 | -1,140.393 | 2,280.787 | 14.650 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,322.367 | 2,334.714 | -1,158.183 | 2,316.367 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,316.726 | 2,341.421 | -1,152.363 | 2,304.726 | 11.641 | 3 | 0.009 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,323.930 | 2,336.278 | -1,158.965 | 2,317.930 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,316.668 | 2,341.363 | -1,152.334 | 2,304.668 | 13.262 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,223.329 | 3,235.677 | -1,608.664 | 3,217.329 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,212.009 | 3,236.704 | -1,600.005 | 3,200.009 | 17.320 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.406 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 106 | 3.21 ± 1.21 | -0.011 | 97 | 3.30 ± 1.20 | -0.224 | 0.618 | -0.085 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.00 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.00 | 0.833 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 106 | 17.70 ± 2.90 | 0.102 | 97 | 18.63 ± 2.86 | -0.467 | 0.021 | -0.525 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.62 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.62 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 106 | 30.40 ± 5.38 | -0.245 | 97 | 31.75 ± 5.27 | -0.595 | 0.072 | -0.466 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.05 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.05 | 0.902 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 106 | 11.64 ± 1.99 | -0.014 | 97 | 11.98 ± 1.96 | -0.257 | 0.222 | -0.268 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.24 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.24 | 0.401 | -0.185 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 106 | 17.62 ± 3.12 | -0.235 | 97 | 18.36 ± 3.07 | -0.446 | 0.091 | -0.397 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.122 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 106 | 13.52 ± 2.81 | -0.251 | 97 | 14.00 ± 2.75 | -0.444 | 0.226 | -0.316 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.198 | 0.255 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 106 | 10.02 ± 2.34 | -0.042 | 97 | 10.38 ± 2.31 | -0.536 | 0.260 | -0.239 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.86 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.86 | 0.303 | 0.280 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 106 | 30.20 ± 9.39 | 0.283 | 97 | 28.64 ± 9.16 | 0.340 | 0.234 | 0.338 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 106 | 22.48 ± 4.39 | -0.168 | 97 | 22.63 ± 4.31 | -0.231 | 0.808 | -0.060 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.75 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.75 | 0.249 | -0.280 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 106 | 25.01 ± 5.51 | -0.170 | 97 | 26.07 ± 5.40 | -0.242 | 0.168 | -0.352 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.17 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.17 | 0.133 | -0.387 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 106 | 20.84 ± 6.86 | -0.334 | 97 | 22.36 ± 6.70 | -0.375 | 0.113 | -0.428 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.76 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.76 | 0.460 | -0.188 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 106 | 11.08 ± 3.60 | -0.232 | 97 | 11.41 ± 3.52 | -0.216 | 0.519 | -0.172 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 106 | 15.84 ± 5.81 | -0.232 | 97 | 16.30 ± 5.68 | -0.381 | 0.571 | -0.149 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.05 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.05 | 0.720 | -0.093 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 106 | 22.65 ± 6.73 | -0.321 | 97 | 22.83 ± 6.57 | -0.281 | 0.847 | -0.052 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.34 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.34 | 0.167 | -0.305 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 106 | 16.89 ± 4.19 | -0.288 | 97 | 18.07 ± 4.12 | -0.455 | 0.045 | -0.472 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.79 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.79 | 0.036 | -0.505 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 106 | 13.12 ± 2.68 | 0.032 | 97 | 14.25 ± 2.62 | -0.232 | 0.003 | -0.769 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.332 | -0.236 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 106 | 17.11 ± 3.06 | -0.210 | 97 | 17.79 ± 2.99 | -0.384 | 0.110 | -0.411 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.28 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.28 | 0.095 | -0.442 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 106 | 12.74 ± 3.13 | -0.214 | 97 | 13.62 ± 3.06 | -0.330 | 0.044 | -0.558 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.03 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.03 | 0.155 | -0.394 | ||
els | 2nd | 106 | 29.85 ± 5.74 | -0.246 | 97 | 31.43 ± 5.59 | -0.424 | 0.048 | -0.572 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.16 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.16 | 0.295 | 0.276 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 106 | 27.14 ± 8.75 | 0.168 | 97 | 24.65 ± 8.54 | 0.457 | 0.041 | 0.565 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.97 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.97 | 0.110 | -0.414 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 106 | 14.10 ± 4.75 | -0.107 | 97 | 15.75 ± 4.64 | -0.369 | 0.013 | -0.676 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.03 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.03 | 0.049 | -0.472 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 106 | 15.87 ± 3.87 | -0.252 | 97 | 17.15 ± 3.79 | -0.381 | 0.018 | -0.601 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.57 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.57 | 0.064 | -0.486 | ||
shs | 2nd | 106 | 29.96 ± 8.18 | -0.192 | 97 | 32.90 ± 7.99 | -0.415 | 0.010 | -0.709 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.721 | 0.062 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 106 | 12.66 ± 1.56 | 0.119 | 97 | 12.77 ± 1.55 | -0.035 | 0.630 | -0.091 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.45 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.45 | 0.100 | -0.322 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 106 | 15.02 ± 3.36 | -0.296 | 97 | 15.00 ± 3.32 | 0.035 | 0.963 | 0.010 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.194 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 106 | 13.74 ± 4.07 | -0.245 | 97 | 14.42 ± 3.99 | -0.335 | 0.232 | -0.284 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.89 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.89 | 0.175 | -0.296 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 106 | 28.76 ± 6.66 | -0.312 | 97 | 29.43 ± 6.55 | -0.185 | 0.468 | -0.169 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.51 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.51 | 0.355 | -0.222 | ||
empower | 2nd | 106 | 19.62 ± 4.33 | -0.325 | 97 | 20.25 ± 4.24 | -0.368 | 0.295 | -0.266 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.49 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.49 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 106 | 14.56 ± 2.44 | -0.119 | 97 | 15.01 ± 2.41 | -0.386 | 0.191 | -0.262 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.821 | 0.045 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 106 | 11.38 ± 2.99 | 0.209 | 97 | 10.84 ± 2.95 | 0.436 | 0.201 | 0.272 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.124 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 106 | 10.08 ± 3.48 | 0.176 | 97 | 9.69 ± 3.40 | 0.515 | 0.420 | 0.216 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.73 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.73 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 106 | 9.72 ± 3.56 | 0.247 | 97 | 9.34 ± 3.48 | 0.408 | 0.445 | 0.204 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.390 | -0.221 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 106 | 8.47 ± 3.58 | 0.134 | 97 | 8.20 ± 3.50 | 0.499 | 0.594 | 0.144 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.48 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.48 | 0.677 | -0.119 | ||
sss | 2nd | 106 | 28.25 ± 9.95 | 0.222 | 97 | 27.27 ± 9.69 | 0.552 | 0.477 | 0.211 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(409.85) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(433.38) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.42)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(330.51) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(376.60) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.73)
ras_confidence
1st
t(308.08) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.73)
2st
t(350.69) = 1.80, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.82)
ras_willingness
1st
t(337.77) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(383.83) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.88)
ras_goal
1st
t(324.11) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(369.78) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.59)
ras_reliance
1st
t(307.28) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(349.66) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.24)
ras_domination
1st
t(345.21) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(390.72) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.01)
symptom
1st
t(296.29) = -1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)
2st
t(334.63) = -1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.11 to 1.01)
slof_work
1st
t(315.11) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)
2st
t(359.43) = 0.24, p = 0.808, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.35)
slof_relationship
1st
t(309.87) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(352.98) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.56)
satisfaction
1st
t(302.52) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)
2st
t(343.34) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.38)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(303.73) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(344.97) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.30)
mhc_social
1st
t(305.88) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(347.82) = 0.57, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.04)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(301.13) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(341.43) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.02)
resilisnce
1st
t(324.34) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(370.04) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.32)
social_provision
1st
t(311.57) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(355.11) = 3.04, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.87)
els_value_living
1st
t(309.56) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(352.59) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.52)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(299.42) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(339.07) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.73)
els
1st
t(294.56) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(332.11) = 1.99, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.14)
social_connect
1st
t(299.78) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)
2st
t(339.57) = -2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.11)
shs_agency
1st
t(301.91) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.24)
2st
t(342.51) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.94)
shs_pathway
1st
t(311.83) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)
2st
t(355.43) = 2.38, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.34)
shs
1st
t(300.36) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)
2st
t(340.38) = 2.59, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.71 to 5.18)
esteem
1st
t(376.35) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(414.61) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.54)
mlq_search
1st
t(348.22) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(393.36) = -0.05, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.90)
mlq_presence
1st
t(321.97) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(367.41) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.79)
mlq
1st
t(326.03) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(371.87) = 0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.50)
empower
1st
t(310.97) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)
2st
t(354.36) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.81)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(359.64) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(402.70) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.12)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(345.19) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)
2st
t(390.70) = -1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.29)
sss_affective
1st
t(303.52) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(344.70) = -0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.56)
sss_behavior
1st
t(303.89) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(345.19) = -0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.59)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(302.46) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(343.25) = -0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.71)
sss
1st
t(291.48) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.16)
2st
t(327.53) = -0.71, p = 0.477, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.70 to 1.73)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(230.52) = 1.62, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(216.94) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(212.99) = 4.21, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.92 to 2.53)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(218.19) = 1.83, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.68)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(215.84) = 3.17, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.34)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(212.85) = 3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.09)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(219.45) = 3.82, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.25)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(210.83) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.85 to -0.28)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(214.25) = 1.63, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.26)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(213.32) = 1.71, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.56)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(211.98) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.31)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(212.20) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.93)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(212.59) = 2.69, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.03)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(211.72) = 1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.92)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(215.88) = 3.23, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.44 to 1.83)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(213.62) = 1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(213.26) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(211.41) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.96)
els
1st vs 2st
t(210.50) = 2.99, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.95)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(211.48) = -3.23, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-3.25 to -0.78)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(211.87) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.58)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(213.67) = 2.69, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(211.58) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.88)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(224.67) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.36)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(219.96) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.54)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(215.46) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(216.17) = 1.31, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.85)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(213.51) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.54)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(221.87) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(219.45) = -3.11, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.40 to -0.31)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(212.16) = -3.64, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.43)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(212.23) = -2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.28 to -0.24)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(211.97) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.40)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(209.92) = -3.88, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.87 to -1.26)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(221.83) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.27)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(211.98) = -0.76, p = 0.901, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.29)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(209.22) = 1.80, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.48)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(212.85) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.36)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(211.20) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.93)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(209.12) = 1.84, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.78)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(213.74) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.47)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(207.72) = -2.08, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.54 to -0.07)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(210.09) = 1.23, p = 0.437, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.08)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(209.44) = 1.25, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.31)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(208.51) = 2.45, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.13)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(208.67) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(208.94) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.54)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(208.34) = 2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.18 to 2.02)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(211.23) = 2.12, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.39)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(209.65) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.35)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(209.40) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.79)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(208.12) = 1.57, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.76)
els
1st vs 2st
t(207.49) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.42)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(208.17) = -1.23, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.44)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(208.44) = 0.78, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.91)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(209.69) = 1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.11)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(208.24) = 1.41, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.91)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(217.49) = -0.88, p = 0.759, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(214.10) = 2.19, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.26)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(210.94) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.22)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(211.43) = 2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.18 to 2.32)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(209.58) = 2.39, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.41)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(215.47) = 0.88, p = 0.757, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.65)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(213.74) = -1.55, p = 0.246, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.11)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(208.64) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.17)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(208.69) = -1.82, p = 0.142, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.04)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(208.51) = -0.98, p = 0.653, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.25)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(207.09) = -1.63, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.28 to 0.22)
Plot
